Talk:Paul Wheaton

Untitled
I’d like to raise consideration on whether this page should be deleted (due to lack of notability) or if it simply needs major revisions (due to current lack of non-promotional references). It is my belief that this website exists solely for the purpose of promoting Mr. Wheaton. I am a casual Wikipedia editor, so I don’t know the best path forward.

Looking back into the history of the page, the page was created in 2013 by @Wikifan115. Later that year, wikifan115 was issued a temporary ban due to suspected paid editing (and apparently an admin had proof of a fiverr account at that time). I don’t have any proof as it relates to this specific article, but I find it a bit intriguing.

The next phase of this page had a significant number of edits by @Ephemeralcas. This user’s history seems to center around Mr. Wheaton’s life with edits to this page, terminal-emulators, wood-burning stoves, and creating the page for “ Ernie and Erica Wisner ‎” which is linked from this page. This user also added Mr. Wheaton to the page List of people from Missoula, Montana, listing Mr. Wheaton as the “Duke of Permaculture.”

The next phase of this page had a series of edits from anonymous users.

The following phase has a series of edits from @EmilyTheEditor. This editor’s entire history revolves around Mr. Wheaton.

The next major segment of edits comes from @Datapass. I don’t have anything special to say about this user or their edits.

Finally we get to current time with recent edits all being made by @GamgeeGardner. This is once again a user who’s only contributions have been to Mr. Wheaton’s page. The first edit made by GamgeeGardner was reverted by @Serols for “Advertising/promotion.” GamgeeGardner re-did that edit nearly identically and that text (and Amazon link) still exists on the page today.

There are claims made on the article I don’t know are backed up with proper sources. For example: “ As a software engineer, he has worked on the ground system for the satellite that took pictures for Google Earth and DigitalGlobe.” This statement is followed up by two sources. One of the sources is Mr. Wheaton’s own website. The second is a local newspaper from Mr. Wheaton’s hometown about him, which I don’t know if that is a good source for about his background.

Additionally, all external links on the page go to websites controlled by Mr. Wheaton, or are otherwise money making sources for him (e.g. Amazon link). 24 of the 61 references have an author listed of Mr. Wheaton or one of his websites.

The conclusion is this: This page seems to be solely designed to advertise and promote Mr. Wheaton. It was first published by a known paid writer, updated overtime primarily by people who only work on Mr. Wheaton’s page (and closely related topics), and exists today in a form which actively links to Amazon (and other) links which Mr. Wheaton is paid from while sourcing much of the information from Mr. Wheaton himself.

I’m a very casual editor of Wikipedia, so I don’t know what the best course of action is for this article. SUPry (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC matter, you should file a WP:AFD. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a WP:AFD. While some of the earlier edits seem questionable as OP stated, the article as it is now complies with WP:N. When I found this article, it was poorly written. I made some major edit with almost WP:TNT to bring it to WP:MOS, doing which I may have removed poorly sourced statements made by those questionable edits. The article, as it is now, contains citations from newspapers, magazines, and other WP:RELIABLE sources. If "24 of the 61 references" are self published, that would still follow WP:BLPSPS. That said, if anything is written as WP:PROMO feel free to improve or discuss on the talk page. &#68184; Datapass talk 	&#8967; contribs 23:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the external links on the article considered promotional? SUPry (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on the link. WP:ELOFFICIAL links to the subject are not necessarily promotional. And then there are WP:LINKSTOAVOID. From a quick look at the "External Links" section, the two amazon links can be converted to the WP:ISBNs format. &#68184; Datapass talk 	&#8967; contribs 00:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, SUPry. I believe you already have a strong case to submit this article to the AfD process. It is typical of a myriad of previously -and unceremoniously- defenestrated vanity texts. As to the kamikaze "editors" you mentioned, they're more than one, at least in signature. Quite typical. -The Gnome (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Notability Dispute
I'm opening this section because the above "Untitled" section is heavily focused on edits made by WP:SPA and possible WP:COI of some earlier editors, and does not adequately discuss notability. And since The Gnome added a notability dispute tag on the article, it needs discussion. Full disclosure: I am a major editor of this article who rewrote the article to remove questionable edits, WP:PEA, and unsourced claims, and brought it to WP:MOS.

I believe that the article, as it is now, meets WP:BIO. Out of the 61 citations, many are from independent secondary sources consisting of newspapers, magazines, and other WP:RELIABLE sources, which meets the notability guidelines. When I rewrote this article, I deleted some WP:PROMO content and questionable claims that I found. If any such content still exists, though they should still be removed independently, they don't constitute a notability dispute. &#68184; Datapass talk 	&#8967; contribs 02:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)